Biblical Mafia [ENDGAME]

[Grand Scheme]

I have to admit, the amount of people calling for him to speak and his lack of response, is suspicious AF

Three thoughts on this:

1) If Paul was kidnapped by Herod, there's certainly the possibility that one of the "Where's Paul?" posters is Heathen and messing with us.

2) If Paul wasn't kidnapped and just busy IRL, then the "Where's Paul?" posters could be sheep and waiting for Paul to run the show a second day.

3) If Paul was kidnapped by Herod, he could actually be a Heathen and it's a plot to make him look even more civvie. This is silly to try now though because Paul wasn't likely to get many votes today anyway. Sure, he was wrong about Samson, but Day 1 lynches take out a civvie a majority of the time.

Is there not a 4th possibility?

4) If Paul wasn't kidnapped, and is pretending, some of the "Where's Paul" posts could be Heathens drawing attention (and cred) to that?

[Grand Scheme]

Oh and also, if I hadn't said already, RIP Martha as well.

[Prisoner 509378]

And only three people have pondered Paul's silence or mentioned wanting to hear his thoughts: Jephthah, Job, & Jonathan.

Is it the number 3 that bothers you or their proximity to each other in the thread?

I have to admit, the amount of people calling for him to speak and his lack of response, is suspicious AF

Three thoughts on this:

1) If Paul was kidnapped by Herod, there's certainly the possibility that one of the "Where's Paul?" posters is Heathen and messing with us.

2) If Paul wasn't kidnapped and just busy IRL, then the "Where's Paul?" posters could be sheep and waiting for Paul to run the show a second day.

3) If Paul was kidnapped by Herod, he could actually be a Heathen and it's a plot to make him look even more civvie. This is silly to try now though because Paul wasn't likely to get many votes today anyway. Sure, he was wrong about Samson, but Day 1 lynches take out a civvie a majority of the time.

Is there not a 4th possibility?

4) If Paul wasn't kidnapped, and is pretending, some of the "Where's Paul" posts could be Heathens drawing attention (and cred) to that?

Ooh. I like how you think. But how would the Heathens draw credibility by exposing Paul for faking, if he is in fact faking? Because it makes it look like he's dishonest or trying to hide something?

[Grand Scheme]

And only three people have pondered Paul's silence or mentioned wanting to hear his thoughts: Jephthah, Job, & Jonathan.

Is it the number 3 that bothers you or their proximity to each other in the thread?

I have to admit, the amount of people calling for him to speak and his lack of response, is suspicious AF

Three thoughts on this:

1) If Paul was kidnapped by Herod, there's certainly the possibility that one of the "Where's Paul?" posters is Heathen and messing with us.

2) If Paul wasn't kidnapped and just busy IRL, then the "Where's Paul?" posters could be sheep and waiting for Paul to run the show a second day.

3) If Paul was kidnapped by Herod, he could actually be a Heathen and it's a plot to make him look even more civvie. This is silly to try now though because Paul wasn't likely to get many votes today anyway. Sure, he was wrong about Samson, but Day 1 lynches take out a civvie a majority of the time.

Is there not a 4th possibility?

4) If Paul wasn't kidnapped, and is pretending, some of the "Where's Paul" posts could be Heathens drawing attention (and cred) to that?

Ooh. I like how you think. But how would the Heathens draw credibility by exposing Paul for faking, if he is in fact faking? Because it makes it look like he's dishonest or trying to hide something?

Not what I meant. I meant that by drawing attention to the fact that Paul was silenced, it makes it less likely that Paul is a Heathen. Or at least, less likely that he will be considered one. Since why would the Heathens silence one of their own,

[Grand Scheme]

In other words, not drawing Credibility for themselves, but for Paul.

[Saito]

I am back now, sorry guys I have only had sporadic time to follow the game. Will attempt a catch up by this afternoon.

[dodo]

I have to admit, the amount of people calling for him to speak and his lack of response, is suspicious AF

Three thoughts on this:

1) If Paul was kidnapped by Herod, there's certainly the possibility that one of the "Where's Paul?" posters is Heathen and messing with us.

2) If Paul wasn't kidnapped and just busy IRL, then the "Where's Paul?" posters could be sheep and waiting for Paul to run the show a second day.

3) If Paul was kidnapped by Herod, he could actually be a Heathen and it's a plot to make him look even more civvie. This is silly to try now though because Paul wasn't likely to get many votes today anyway. Sure, he was wrong about Samson, but Day 1 lynches take out a civvie a majority of the time.

I'm liking the way you think.

And only three people have pondered Paul's silence or mentioned wanting to hear his thoughts: Jephthah, Job, & Jonathan.

Is it the number 3 that bothers you or their proximity to each other in the thread?

I have to admit, the amount of people calling for him to speak and his lack of response, is suspicious AF

Three thoughts on this:

1) If Paul was kidnapped by Herod, there's certainly the possibility that one of the "Where's Paul?" posters is Heathen and messing with us.

2) If Paul wasn't kidnapped and just busy IRL, then the "Where's Paul?" posters could be sheep and waiting for Paul to run the show a second day.

3) If Paul was kidnapped by Herod, he could actually be a Heathen and it's a plot to make him look even more civvie. This is silly to try now though because Paul wasn't likely to get many votes today anyway. Sure, he was wrong about Samson, but Day 1 lynches take out a civvie a majority of the time.

Is there not a 4th possibility?

4) If Paul wasn't kidnapped, and is pretending, some of the "Where's Paul" posts could be Heathens drawing attention (and cred) to that?

Ooh. I like how you think. But how would the Heathens draw credibility by exposing Paul for faking, if he is in fact faking? Because it makes it look like he's dishonest or trying to hide something?

Not what I meant. I meant that by drawing attention to the fact that Paul was silenced, it makes it less likely that Paul is a Heathen. Or at least, less likely that he will be considered one. Since why would the Heathens silence one of their own,

OR they want to point out someone who might be silenced, isn't (and they know it) and they look not bad because of it.

Really, most scenarios paint them baldy. I will be keeping my eye on Job, specifically.

[Grand Scheme]

I have to admit, the amount of people calling for him to speak and his lack of response, is suspicious AF

Three thoughts on this:

1) If Paul was kidnapped by Herod, there's certainly the possibility that one of the "Where's Paul?" posters is Heathen and messing with us.

2) If Paul wasn't kidnapped and just busy IRL, then the "Where's Paul?" posters could be sheep and waiting for Paul to run the show a second day.

3) If Paul was kidnapped by Herod, he could actually be a Heathen and it's a plot to make him look even more civvie. This is silly to try now though because Paul wasn't likely to get many votes today anyway. Sure, he was wrong about Samson, but Day 1 lynches take out a civvie a majority of the time.

I'm liking the way you think.

And only three people have pondered Paul's silence or mentioned wanting to hear his thoughts: Jephthah, Job, & Jonathan.

Is it the number 3 that bothers you or their proximity to each other in the thread?

I have to admit, the amount of people calling for him to speak and his lack of response, is suspicious AF

Three thoughts on this:

1) If Paul was kidnapped by Herod, there's certainly the possibility that one of the "Where's Paul?" posters is Heathen and messing with us.

2) If Paul wasn't kidnapped and just busy IRL, then the "Where's Paul?" posters could be sheep and waiting for Paul to run the show a second day.

3) If Paul was kidnapped by Herod, he could actually be a Heathen and it's a plot to make him look even more civvie. This is silly to try now though because Paul wasn't likely to get many votes today anyway. Sure, he was wrong about Samson, but Day 1 lynches take out a civvie a majority of the time.

Is there not a 4th possibility?

4) If Paul wasn't kidnapped, and is pretending, some of the "Where's Paul" posts could be Heathens drawing attention (and cred) to that?

Ooh. I like how you think. But how would the Heathens draw credibility by exposing Paul for faking, if he is in fact faking? Because it makes it look like he's dishonest or trying to hide something?

Not what I meant. I meant that by drawing attention to the fact that Paul was silenced, it makes it less likely that Paul is a Heathen. Or at least, less likely that he will be considered one. Since why would the Heathens silence one of their own,

OR they want to point out someone who might be silenced, isn't (and they know it) and they look not bad because of it.

Really, most scenarios paint them baldy. I will be keeping my eye on Job, specifically.

I guess it is all speculation until we hear from Paul, if at all.

[dodo]

I don't think it matters.

I think JOB is bad and this is just a reason why.

[Saito]

Not going to lie, the number of people pulling the "aw shucks, trying is too hard for Day 1- randoms! " irks me. Vote spreading is to be expected but so is some level of participation. I've got my eye on all of you.

In the interest of keeping things interesting, I'm going to vote for Cain. Don't try to play five games at once and think it's okay to give us sass about why you're ignoring one of them. You're probably a civvie but oh well. So it Samson I bet. Nice bandwagon set up there btw.

Okay, I do not like this post at all. Balaam, you actually managed to scold people for throwing away their votes in the same post where you threw away yours! That's incredible. You tell me, please, how voting for someone who says they are overstretched but who is "probably a civvie" is any better? And since then, all you have done is discuss how Paul is not around. I read you as someone who is trying to sound like they are participating in the game but who really isn't very invested in finding baddies.

[Saito]

Not at this time.

Here is the point where I mention that having only five posts, but one was to vote in the Day 0 poll and one is a lynch vote with no real explanation = shifty. You are barely participating, but you are casting votes, which tells me you are paying more attention than you are letting on.

[Prisoner 509378]

In other words, not drawing Credibility for themselves, but for Paul.

Gotcha. Kind of a companion piece to my point #3. It's something I've seen done a few times before by baddie teams. Sometimes it blows up in their faces but sometimes it makes suckers out of the civs. It makes sense for the Heathens to target Paul regardless of his alliance. He was the most vocal by far and, even though his fishing killed a civ, at least he was generating talking points. The perception of being silenced by baddies can be a powerful ally. But we won't have any clue unless Paul shows up or until multiple people claim on Day 3 that they were kidnapped.

[Prisoner 509378]

linki Deborah- I'll get back to you in 30 minutes on my post that bugged you

[Lunatella]

I don't think it matters.

I think JOB is bad and this is just a reason why.

This is ridiculous and you know it. Calling attention to Paul's silence is like saying "OMG guys the sun is shining in the sky". I didn't have to say it to bring attention to it. Anyone who can read noticed, because a lot of people were complaining how much he was talking on Day 1. I'd be willing to bet he's easily within the top three posters as of the time he left day 1.

[Saito]

What does it tell you specifically?

You do not think that there is a chance Cain is bad? And that him picking up some votes may have made it a lot easier for people to vote for Samson?

And to Rachel, here is how I work. I read the thread in general, but I prefer to click the "in topic" button and read a player's post in order. It is easier to see apathy, suspicious tendencies, over-posting about useless crap to hide a lack of real content, etc. So I read through the people who hd acted on the poll and those getting votes, and Cain pinged me. I am sorry that you do not like that. I can write a gigantic wall post breaking down my thoughts on every single player if you want, but it feels like ever since I voted for Cain that you and a few friends have been actively TRYING to make this into a thing, and you are not even bothering to consider that my ping may be right and that those votes against him were proper. I am sorry, but I am not going to apologize for that vote.

[Saito]

RIP darlin.

Public enemy number one is obviously uzziah. He point out blank said he's rooting for the scum.

I also suspect absalom. Why else would Martha be dead? She gained more than her fair share of suspicion day 1 IMO.

Judging Uzziah's rooting post would be a lot easier if I could know who the player is. Without that knowledge, it could just be a stupid early game comment meant to stir the pot. As it is, I don't think a Uzziah lynch would be a bad idea, but it would be lazy. Lynching someone for a post that could have been a joke is lazy, but it is fine if nothing more concrete emerges. I hope that makes sense. Off for lunch now, will continue to catch up later.

[Grand Scheme]

"Rooting for" versus "Rooting out" would seem to be the deciding factor on the Uzzie front. When you say "rooting for" you mean cheering on, when you say "rooting out" you mean the weeding definition that was given. Thhough I would think it would be too foolhardy to openly admit to "rooting for" mafia.

[Lunatella]

RIP darlin.

Public enemy number one is obviously uzziah. He point out blank said he's rooting for the scum.

I also suspect absalom. Why else would Martha be dead? She gained more than her fair share of suspicion day 1 IMO.

Judging Uzziah's rooting post would be a lot easier if I could know who the player is. Without that knowledge, it could just be a stupid early game comment meant to stir the pot. As it is, I don't think a Uzziah lynch would be a bad idea, but it would be lazy. Lynching someone for a post that could have been a joke is lazy, but it is fine if nothing more concrete emerges. I hope that makes sense. Off for lunch now, will continue to catch up later.

Yes it might be ridiculous to lynch him solely for that comment, but don't you think his behaviour since has been anything but town? He refuses to comment on anyone but three people. He responds curtly, he throws a tantrum and he acts like it's ridiculous to even entertain the thought that root could be interpreted as "cheer". He votes early for no reason without explaining and did a huge no u on my suspicions him. His entire existence is wifom and there is no reason for it if you have nothing to hide. You don't need to know his identity. The reason people wifom is to make people less suspicious of them in future games when they do the same behaviour.

[Lunatella]

"Rooting for" versus "Rooting out" would seem to be the deciding factor on the Uzzie front. When you say "rooting for" you mean cheering on, when you say "rooting out" you mean the weeding definition that was given. Thhough I would think it would be too foolhardy to openly admit to "rooting for" mafia.

You be surprised. I witnessed someone claim they were mafia day after day and never get lynched in a recent game. People think it's so obvious it couldn't be true. But what purpose does it have in a sock game?

[NurseWilgy]

I sympathize with the suspicion of Uzziah. I agree he has not been very helpful. But as Samson said, we tend to vote for what is noticeable over what is actually baddie behaviour. At this stage, I prefer to focus on people who are flying under the radar. I think the Martha kill is a genius way to keep us focused on the more talkative folks. SO I will be going in the opposite direction and looking at those who are blendy. People like.... CAIN!

[dodo]

I don't think it matters.

I think JOB is bad and this is just a reason why.

This is ridiculous and you know it. Calling attention to Paul's silence is like saying "OMG guys the sun is shining in the sky". I didn't have to say it to bring attention to it. Anyone who can read noticed, because a lot of people were complaining how much he was talking on Day 1. I'd be willing to bet he's easily within the top three posters as of the time he left day 1.

He's the top poster in the thread.
That's not the point.
"Wherever is he? I want his opinion on things!? Oh well.... this will do... "

Very suspicious to me.

Not going to lie, the number of people pulling the "aw shucks, trying is too hard for Day 1- randoms! " irks me. Vote spreading is to be expected but so is some level of participation. I've got my eye on all of you.

In the interest of keeping things interesting, I'm going to vote for Cain. Don't try to play five games at once and think it's okay to give us sass about why you're ignoring one of them. You're probably a civvie but oh well. So it Samson I bet. Nice bandwagon set up there btw.

Okay, I do not like this post at all. Balaam, you actually managed to scold people for throwing away their votes in the same post where you threw away yours! That's incredible. You tell me, please, how voting for someone who says they are overstretched but who is "probably a civvie" is any better? And since then, all you have done is discuss how Paul is not around. I read you as someone who is trying to sound like they are participating in the game but who really isn't very invested in finding baddies.

I find this post half good and half bad because voting Cain was NOT throwing your vote away.

[Prisoner 509378]

Not going to lie, the number of people pulling the "aw shucks, trying is too hard for Day 1- randoms! " irks me. Vote spreading is to be expected but so is some level of participation. I've got my eye on all of you.

In the interest of keeping things interesting, I'm going to vote for Cain. Don't try to play five games at once and think it's okay to give us sass about why you're ignoring one of them. You're probably a civvie but oh well. So it Samson I bet. Nice bandwagon set up there btw.

Okay, I do not like this post at all. Balaam, you actually managed to scold people for throwing away their votes in the same post where you threw away yours! That's incredible. You tell me, please, how voting for someone who says they are overstretched but who is "probably a civvie" is any better? And since then, all you have done is discuss how Paul is not around. I read you as someone who is trying to sound like they are participating in the game but who really isn't very invested in finding baddies.

I find this post half good and half bad because voting Cain was NOT throwing your vote away.

Sorry for the delay!

For Deborah:
I voted for Cain yesterday to keep the vote close. At the time I voted, it was 7-4 in favor of Samson. I voted to make it 7-5 in the effort to give the remaining people who hadn't voted yet a choice. If one player gets a large enough lead, late voters can sometimes just see the big lead, assume it's in the bag and either join the bandwagon with a shrug or toss their vote randomly at someone with one or no votes. I was hoping to show people that Paul's fishing party was not necessarily in the bag and their votes could actually still make a difference.

I mentioned that Cain was probably a civvie because, statistically speaking, he more than likely is. If it's just Heathens that are bad, then the first stoning victim had an 85.29% probability of being civvie. If both Heathens and Horsemen need to go for us civvies to win, then the first stoning victim had a 73.53% probability of being a civvie. I was just commenting on the cold hard numbers, albeit in a vague and kind of flippant sort of way.

For Rachel: Are you saying my post is half good and half bad or Deborah's post is half good and half bad?

[Prisoner 509378]

Also for Deborah:
As for the discussion of Paul's absence, I'm really only commenting on it because it's the most noticeable aspect of Day 2 so far. Paul is a double-edged sword. I have nothing against his tactics, just the sheer amount of posts he creates. With him around, there is a lot of reading to do and a lot of salt to take. Without him, there's a whole lot of nothing. If we want to talk about something else, let's go there. As someone who is not much of a tone reader, it's hard for me to engage in the suspicions being floated about because I don't have much of an opinion on people yet.

[Ben Linus]

For the record, I did not kill Martha. I'm tough enough to handle a little accusation. I can't say I blame people for wanting to vote Uzziah. He hasn't exactly done much to inspire confidence, but I am still nervous about Cain.

For the record I don't believe you.

When Uzziah first posted that he was rooting for scum I thought for sure he was someone on our site who always says things like that but they rarely speak to his alignment. As I read over his posts this morning though I'm starting to have some doubts that he is that person thus I am starting to look his way. I know meta is not supposed to play into this game but you just can't help it when a comment that unusual is made, and I can tell at least one other person had the same thought I did. So I have my eye on him today.

I'm inclined to agree that killing Martha may have been an attempt to frame Absalom or Paul. True it could have been just the opposite, one of them killed her because she was too close but I don't think either would have been worried about Martha getting people to vote them.

I'd like to hear or see more from Paul today regarding his thoughts about the Martha kill and other things.

Really regarding Uzziah? Who admits they are bad like that? You are actually considering this a baddie tactic? Not that I think Uzziah is a civvie but good lord what a stupid reason for suspecting someone.

I'm a little confused. Whats the stupid reason for suspecting someone?

Your reason.

[Snapshot]

RIP darlin.

Public enemy number one is obviously uzziah. He point out blank said he's rooting for the scum.

I also suspect absalom. Why else would Martha be dead? She gained more than her fair share of suspicion day 1 IMO.

Judging Uzziah's rooting post would be a lot easier if I could know who the player is. Without that knowledge, it could just be a stupid early game comment meant to stir the pot. As it is, I don't think a Uzziah lynch would be a bad idea, but it would be lazy. Lynching someone for a post that could have been a joke is lazy, but it is fine if nothing more concrete emerges. I hope that makes sense. Off for lunch now, will continue to catch up later.

I agree with this completely, it's very much how I feel...

Uzziah is not a terrible lynch option but he is a lazy one, after we just had a lazy one on day one. And what bothers me the most is we have a lot of people on this site who, if they made the comment Uzziah is taking hell for, we would just say 'oh, thats just x playing their normal game'. Not just one specific person, but a few. It doesn't make sense to me to say 'I'm rooting for the scum' makes him bad - even if you interpret it as him stating he is bad, why the heck would he say it if he is actually bad?

I also yesterday raised the same post you did on Balaam, although I'm feeling quite a bit better about him now. I did a reread of him and actually I don't think he comes across as just 'trying' to contribute for most of the time.

And Job is someone I'm now feeling very wary of. He is quite wedded to his ideas and combative. I'm going to do a full reread. Early on day one, Job was the first person I thought 'he looks civvie', so I think I need to have another look at the full picture with him.

Absalom, I completely agree on Cain too... even at the time I think I said (I was certainly thinking) that in some ways the Samson votes felt a little like a protection of Cain.

Lastly, when I checked yesterday, a full 14 players were still under 10 posts. This is ridiculous. In a sock game, where people blend in, it becomes very easy to hide. I wouldn't object at all to some pact to start lynching some of them if they don't start actually contributing.

[Snapshot]

A lot of my posts are shit. Allow me to clarify some points from that last one.

On Balaam, I mean he didn't come across as someone who was trying to look as though he was helping, he looked like someone who was actually trying to help.

On Uzziah, I meant - why would anyone, good or bad, make that statement. I'm not sure why we'd see it as an indicator of guilt, even giving the 'admitting he is bad' interpretation to it.

[Julinook]

And only three people have pondered Paul's silence or mentioned wanting to hear his thoughts: Jephthah, Job, & Jonathan.

Is it the number 3 that bothers you or their proximity to each other in the thread?

I have to admit, the amount of people calling for him to speak and his lack of response, is suspicious AF

Three thoughts on this:

1) If Paul was kidnapped by Herod, there's certainly the possibility that one of the "Where's Paul?" posters is Heathen and messing with us.

2) If Paul wasn't kidnapped and just busy IRL, then the "Where's Paul?" posters could be sheep and waiting for Paul to run the show a second day.

3) If Paul was kidnapped by Herod, he could actually be a Heathen and it's a plot to make him look even more civvie. This is silly to try now though because Paul wasn't likely to get many votes today anyway. Sure, he was wrong about Samson, but Day 1 lynches take out a civvie a majority of the time.

Is there not a 4th possibility?

4) If Paul wasn't kidnapped, and is pretending, some of the "Where's Paul" posts could be Heathens drawing attention (and cred) to that?

Ooh. I like how you think. But how would the Heathens draw credibility by exposing Paul for faking, if he is in fact faking? Because it makes it look like he's dishonest or trying to hide something?

I don't really suspect Paul so I doubt #4 is true. If he can't post this day then I'm glad he's off the poll. I think a lot of the suspicion on him is bogus. I could be wrong I guess but I feel he is in the lime light because he posts a lot.

As for some suspicion on me, I know I haven't posted a lot. It's not that I'm trying to lie low, I'm just having troubles following the game. The names and pics are very similar and I don't know who is who which messes with my own Mafia game tactic. I'm hoping to get my shit together.

My vote last lynch was not taking the easy way out. I really thought the lynch was over in one minute and the only thing I could remember at that time was Samson's vote. Take it as you may.

[Ben Linus]

I think that is a stretch. Those definitions of the word are far less commonly used in the context of his sentence.

I think it's a stretch to assume Uzz meant Uzz was a Heathen.

I was planning on voting for Martha for her crappy case on Absalom. I don't suspect Absalom. I still suspect Uzziah, and I'll probably vote for him again.

I did not thin it was that crappy. I thought his defense was though.

[Ben Linus]

And only three people have pondered Paul's silence or mentioned wanting to hear his thoughts: Jephthah, Job, & Jonathan.

Is it the number 3 that bothers you or their proximity to each other in the thread?

I have to admit, the amount of people calling for him to speak and his lack of response, is suspicious AF

Three thoughts on this:

1) If Paul was kidnapped by Herod, there's certainly the possibility that one of the "Where's Paul?" posters is Heathen and messing with us.

2) If Paul wasn't kidnapped and just busy IRL, then the "Where's Paul?" posters could be sheep and waiting for Paul to run the show a second day.

3) If Paul was kidnapped by Herod, he could actually be a Heathen and it's a plot to make him look even more civvie. This is silly to try now though because Paul wasn't likely to get many votes today anyway. Sure, he was wrong about Samson, but Day 1 lynches take out a civvie a majority of the time.

Is there not a 4th possibility?

4) If Paul wasn't kidnapped, and is pretending, some of the "Where's Paul" posts could be Heathens drawing attention (and cred) to that?

Ooh. I like how you think. But how would the Heathens draw credibility by exposing Paul for faking, if he is in fact faking? Because it makes it look like he's dishonest or trying to hide something?

I don't really suspect Paul so I doubt #4 is true. If he can't post this day then I'm glad he's off the poll. I think a lot of the suspicion on him is bogus. I could be wrong I guess but I feel he is in the lime light because he posts a lot.

As for some suspicion on me, I know I haven't posted a lot. It's not that I'm trying to lie low, I'm just having troubles following the game. The names and pics are very similar and I don't know who is who which messes with my own Mafia game tactic. I'm hoping to get my shit together.

My vote last lynch was not taking the easy way out. I really thought the lynch was over in one minute and the only thing I could remember at that time was Samson's vote. Take it as you may.

Easy excuse for a baddie to hide behind TBH.

[2 Stupid Dogs]

For the record, I did not kill Martha. I'm tough enough to handle a little accusation. I can't say I blame people for wanting to vote Uzziah. He hasn't exactly done much to inspire confidence, but I am still nervous about Cain.

For the record I don't believe you.

When Uzziah first posted that he was rooting for scum I thought for sure he was someone on our site who always says things like that but they rarely speak to his alignment. As I read over his posts this morning though I'm starting to have some doubts that he is that person thus I am starting to look his way. I know meta is not supposed to play into this game but you just can't help it when a comment that unusual is made, and I can tell at least one other person had the same thought I did. So I have my eye on him today.

I'm inclined to agree that killing Martha may have been an attempt to frame Absalom or Paul. True it could have been just the opposite, one of them killed her because she was too close but I don't think either would have been worried about Martha getting people to vote them.

I'd like to hear or see more from Paul today regarding his thoughts about the Martha kill and other things.

Really regarding Uzziah? Who admits they are bad like that? You are actually considering this a baddie tactic? Not that I think Uzziah is a civvie but good lord what a stupid reason for suspecting someone.

I'm a little confused. Whats the stupid reason for suspecting someone?

Your reason.

If Uzziah is the person I first suspected he was he would definitely say something like that even if he's bad. Trouble is, he says things like that whether he's bad or good. It's hard to describe unless you've personally experienced it. I don't know though that Uzziah is the person I suspected. The fact that he has said more makes me start to doubt. The person I'm thinking of is somewhat quiet except for saying crazy things. I've begun to suspect it's someone else, someone who's identity I don't know and for all I know that person could be trying to emulate the person I thought Uzziah was, in which case I can't tell anything about their alignment. Thus I'm going to keep an eye out on Uzziah. Maybe that helps clarify. In any case, fyi its bad form here to use stupid to describe a person, their opinions, their thoughts or their point of view as it expresses disrespect for the person, so I will ask you to please not do it again.

[Julinook]

And only three people have pondered Paul's silence or mentioned wanting to hear his thoughts: Jephthah, Job, & Jonathan.

Is it the number 3 that bothers you or their proximity to each other in the thread?

I have to admit, the amount of people calling for him to speak and his lack of response, is suspicious AF

Three thoughts on this:

1) If Paul was kidnapped by Herod, there's certainly the possibility that one of the "Where's Paul?" posters is Heathen and messing with us.

2) If Paul wasn't kidnapped and just busy IRL, then the "Where's Paul?" posters could be sheep and waiting for Paul to run the show a second day.

3) If Paul was kidnapped by Herod, he could actually be a Heathen and it's a plot to make him look even more civvie. This is silly to try now though because Paul wasn't likely to get many votes today anyway. Sure, he was wrong about Samson, but Day 1 lynches take out a civvie a majority of the time.

Is there not a 4th possibility?

4) If Paul wasn't kidnapped, and is pretending, some of the "Where's Paul" posts could be Heathens drawing attention (and cred) to that?

Ooh. I like how you think. But how would the Heathens draw credibility by exposing Paul for faking, if he is in fact faking? Because it makes it look like he's dishonest or trying to hide something?

I don't really suspect Paul so I doubt #4 is true. If he can't post this day then I'm glad he's off the poll. I think a lot of the suspicion on him is bogus. I could be wrong I guess but I feel he is in the lime light because he posts a lot.

As for some suspicion on me, I know I haven't posted a lot. It's not that I'm trying to lie low, I'm just having troubles following the game. The names and pics are very similar and I don't know who is who which messes with my own Mafia game tactic. I'm hoping to get my shit together.

My vote last lynch was not taking the easy way out. I really thought the lynch was over in one minute and the only thing I could remember at that time was Samson's vote. Take it as you may.

Easy excuse for a baddie to hide behind TBH.

Baddies don't usually hide behind the truth.

[dodo]

For Rachel: Are you saying my post is half good and half bad or Deborah's post is half good and half bad?

Deborah's.

Also for Deborah:
As for the discussion of Paul's absence, I'm really only commenting on it because it's the most noticeable aspect of Day 2 so far. Paul is a double-edged sword. I have nothing against his tactics, just the sheer amount of posts he creates. With him around, there is a lot of reading to do and a lot of salt to take. Without him, there's a whole lot of nothing. If we want to talk about something else, let's go there. As someone who is not much of a tone reader, it's hard for me to engage in the suspicions being floated about because I don't have much of an opinion on people yet.

TBH that's not true. There has been discussion on players, you just have chosen to ignore it.

[Larry David]

After I posted yesterday I did some errands, ate dinner, and then fell asleep on my couch. So I didn't get to post my opinions until after I got out of work today. I could have done that from my phone but it's old and the processor isnt that great anymore so it's a pain to do so.

Anyway I didn't find anything in Martha's posts where she points to people other than Paul and Absalom a bit. Unless I missed it somehow. So unfortunately this didnt give me anything new and this kill still only points to Paul and Absalom, which has me doing mental gymnastics. On one hand, this is an extremely obvious frame. On the other hand, that would be a perfect time for either Paul or Absalom to make the Martha kill and hide behind the reasoning of "Why would I do something so obvious?". So it's either a frame, or one of those two players has some pretty big brass balls to make that play. Still determining whether or not one of them would do that, but Absalom doesnt seem like the type who has the guts to go through with it. Paul is under my microscope at the moment.

In regards to the Uzziah situation, I feel like voting him right now would be very lazy town play. I've been playing games at other sites lately and you'd be surprised how many people play as the troll, openly supporting baddies, going so far as begging the thread to lynch them, only for that person to be revealed as roleless town. I'm not discrediting that Uzziah could be hiding behind this tactic as a heathen, that opinion is definitely viable, but I feel like voting for Uzziah just because "He said he's rooting for the heathens! Kill him!" is a cop out for actually doing anything or needing to think critically for yourself. If he flips town, everyone who voted for him gets to default to the answer of "But he said he supports the bad guys.......", which gives the heathens an easy way to hide behind a mislynch if Uzziah isn't actually bad. It's the easy answer, and easy doesnt win games.

[Ben Linus]

And only three people have pondered Paul's silence or mentioned wanting to hear his thoughts: Jephthah, Job, & Jonathan.

Is it the number 3 that bothers you or their proximity to each other in the thread?

I have to admit, the amount of people calling for him to speak and his lack of response, is suspicious AF

Three thoughts on this:

1) If Paul was kidnapped by Herod, there's certainly the possibility that one of the "Where's Paul?" posters is Heathen and messing with us.

2) If Paul wasn't kidnapped and just busy IRL, then the "Where's Paul?" posters could be sheep and waiting for Paul to run the show a second day.

3) If Paul was kidnapped by Herod, he could actually be a Heathen and it's a plot to make him look even more civvie. This is silly to try now though because Paul wasn't likely to get many votes today anyway. Sure, he was wrong about Samson, but Day 1 lynches take out a civvie a majority of the time.

Is there not a 4th possibility?

4) If Paul wasn't kidnapped, and is pretending, some of the "Where's Paul" posts could be Heathens drawing attention (and cred) to that?

Ooh. I like how you think. But how would the Heathens draw credibility by exposing Paul for faking, if he is in fact faking? Because it makes it look like he's dishonest or trying to hide something?

I don't really suspect Paul so I doubt #4 is true. If he can't post this day then I'm glad he's off the poll. I think a lot of the suspicion on him is bogus. I could be wrong I guess but I feel he is in the lime light because he posts a lot.

As for some suspicion on me, I know I haven't posted a lot. It's not that I'm trying to lie low, I'm just having troubles following the game. The names and pics are very similar and I don't know who is who which messes with my own Mafia game tactic. I'm hoping to get my shit together.

My vote last lynch was not taking the easy way out. I really thought the lynch was over in one minute and the only thing I could remember at that time was Samson's vote. Take it as you may.

Easy excuse for a baddie to hide behind TBH.

Baddies don't usually hide behind the truth.

Yes they do, all the time. They even declare it to be the truth,

[NurseWilgy]

Anyway I didn't find anything in Martha's posts where she points to people other than Paul and Absalom a bit. Unless I missed it somehow. So unfortunately this didnt give me anything new and this kill still only points to Paul and Absalom, which has me doing mental gymnastics. On one hand, this is an extremely obvious frame. On the other hand, that would be a perfect time for either Paul or Absalom to make the Martha kill and hide behind the reasoning of "Why would I do something so obvious?". So it's either a frame, or one of those two players has some pretty big brass balls to make that play. Still determining whether or not one of them would do that, but Absalom doesnt seem like the type who has the guts to go through with it. Paul is under my microscope at the moment.

Gee, thanks. :P

[Lunatella]

Consider in addition to what I've already pointed out, how many people are subtly defending Uzziah comment by calling suspicion of him dumb or lazy. This makes me wary tbqh. I disagree that it is easy. If you want an example take a look at how difficult it is to convince the players in this very game.

People make valid points when they say 'but why would you do that if you're bad?' to which I respond, stop using that as the sum of the case. Yes it is the basis point for why I am suspicious of him, but he has done scummiest things since then, like refusing to be helpful and responding snarkily, voting early, etc.

But if you're still hung up on the rooting statement, I'll say again. The reason you would say 'I am bad' when good is so that you get lynched and everyone discovers OMG he did it as town. It only takes a few times of that happening before eventually you're dealt a scum role and now you are free to say things that are bat sit crazy without suspicion. My point being, no one knows for certain who Uzziah is, so there is no point in setting up for a future game. He's doing it for the wifom.

[Snapshot]

Job - people are calling it lazy because it is. It's not lazy from you, you clearly believe it (If you are civ, that you've found a heathen. Even if you are heathen or horseman, my sense from you is that you genuinely believe you've found someone of the other faction), and you've worked hard. But it's a very easy outlet for a bandwagon full of people who have barely spoken. Do you really believe, if you are right about Uzziah being heathen, that it would just be all his teammates coming in to the thread to call it lazy? Can't you see the truth of the fact that it would be a lazy vote?

There are a whole lot of people I want to hear more from, but here are some for starters who my eye is on for saying virtually nothing. Esther, Bathsheba, Stephen, Hagar, Lazarus, Gideon.

[NurseWilgy]

Consider in addition to what I've already pointed out, how many people are subtly defending Uzziah comment by calling suspicion of him dumb or lazy. This makes me wary tbqh. I disagree that it is easy. If you want an example take a look at how difficult it is to convince the players in this very game.

People make valid points when they say 'but why would you do that if you're bad?' to which I respond, stop using that as the sum of the case. Yes it is the basis point for why I am suspicious of him, but he has done scummiest things since then, like refusing to be helpful and responding snarkily, voting early, etc.

But if you're still hung up on the rooting statement, I'll say again. The reason you would say 'I am bad' when good is so that you get lynched and everyone discovers OMG he did it as town. It only takes a few times of that happening before eventually you're dealt a scum role and now you are free to say things that are bat sit crazy without suspicion. My point being, no one knows for certain who Uzziah is, so there is no point in setting up for a future game. He's doing it for the wifom.

This is a very good point, and now that you say it, it is true that a lot of people have been quietly resistant to an Uzziah lynch. I would be up for joining you. If nothing else, it would be instructive.

[Larry David]

Consider in addition to what I've already pointed out, how many people are subtly defending Uzziah comment by calling suspicion of him dumb or lazy. This makes me wary tbqh. I disagree that it is easy. If you want an example take a look at how difficult it is to convince the players in this very game.

People make valid points when they say 'but why would you do that if you're bad?' to which I respond, stop using that as the sum of the case. Yes it is the basis point for why I am suspicious of him, but he has done scummiest things since then, like refusing to be helpful and responding snarkily, voting early, etc.

But if you're still hung up on the rooting statement, I'll say again. The reason you would say 'I am bad' when good is so that you get lynched and everyone discovers OMG he did it as town. It only takes a few times of that happening before eventually you're dealt a scum role and now you are free to say things that are bat sit crazy without suspicion. My point being, no one knows for certain who Uzziah is, so there is no point in setting up for a future game. He's doing it for the wifom.

I will give you the first underlined section. He really hasnt done anything other than say he found two heathens with no real basis and just fluff posting in general. "Rooting for baddies" aside, that doesnt look very town.

I agree with the second underlined section as well. My experience with this kind of trolling has just made me wary of voting for that type of player without questioning it extensively. Which brings me to another point. As you just said, Job, Uzziah wouldn't be doing this for future game setup. So then why would he be so obviously bad? Does he want us to lynch him? We don't know what the Horsemen's abilities are, and one of them could very well be a bomb of sorts. Or perhaps some kind of effect detrimental to the town occurs upon his death? What's your take on that?

Looking back at my post, I want to clarify that I'm not saying we shouldnt lynch Uzziah. I'm just saying we shouldnt be so complacent in our reasonings is all.

[Snapshot]

Why wouldn't Uzziah be doing it for future game set up? All will be revealed at the end... you think he can't say in a future game 'When I was Uzziah in Biblical mafia I did that'?

I hate that I'm defending this guy, but a lot of the stuff being said about him just doesn't make any sense. Job has tunnel vision, but no his reasoning is not good. The only thing about it that is true is that Uzziah is refusing to be helpful in the thread, but mostly I think Job has tunnel vision because the person Uzziah has been looking at for a lynch is Job.

[Saito]

root 1
(ro͞ot, ro͝ot)
n.

4. a. To dig or pull out by the roots.

b. To remove or get rid of.

I never thought Uzziah meant he was cheering the scum on. Turns out there are a lot of definitions of root. Not all of which I find it appropriate to post at this time.

Not that I'm defending Uzziah - I dunno what to make of him. But now at least I understand why people are saying Uzziah has admitted to being bad, which I couldn't figure our before.

I do not know what to even think of this post. Like, we are breaking down the word choice in Uzziah's infamous post now? The idea of alternate meanings of the words, coupled with Uzziah supporting this by saying that his choice of words was deliberately ambiguous, makes me swing back to thinking he could well be bad. This whole thing is starting to make my head ache. Also, Lot just sort of supported him again.

[Paul Stevens]

I'm really sorry I'm so inactive. I have literally no time at all for mafia this month I will try to catch up later tonight or tomorrow morning.

[Grand Scheme]

root 1
(ro͞ot, ro͝ot)
n.

4. a. To dig or pull out by the roots.

b. To remove or get rid of.

I never thought Uzziah meant he was cheering the scum on. Turns out there are a lot of definitions of root. Not all of which I find it appropriate to post at this time.

Not that I'm defending Uzziah - I dunno what to make of him. But now at least I understand why people are saying Uzziah has admitted to being bad, which I couldn't figure our before.

I do not know what to even think of this post. Like, we are breaking down the word choice in Uzziah's infamous post now? The idea of alternate meanings of the words, coupled with Uzziah supporting this by saying that his choice of words was deliberately ambiguous, makes me swing back to thinking he could well be bad. This whole thing is starting to make my head ache. Also, Lot just sort of supported him again.

"Woe to the obstinate children," declares the LORD, "to those who carry out plans that are not mine, forming an alliance, but not by my Spirit, heaping sin upon sin."

[Snapshot]

root 1
(ro͞ot, ro͝ot)
n.

4. a. To dig or pull out by the roots.

b. To remove or get rid of.

I never thought Uzziah meant he was cheering the scum on. Turns out there are a lot of definitions of root. Not all of which I find it appropriate to post at this time.

Not that I'm defending Uzziah - I dunno what to make of him. But now at least I understand why people are saying Uzziah has admitted to being bad, which I couldn't figure our before.

I do not know what to even think of this post. Like, we are breaking down the word choice in Uzziah's infamous post now? The idea of alternate meanings of the words, coupled with Uzziah supporting this by saying that his choice of words was deliberately ambiguous, makes me swing back to thinking he could well be bad. This whole thing is starting to make my head ache. Also, Lot just sort of supported him again.

I defined it because it seemed clear to me at the time that Uzziah and Job were speaking at cross purposes. Uzziah said 'tell me one post where I claimed to be bad', Job quoted that one, and Uzziah promptly voted for him - it looked to me like the whole thing was a misunderstanding to me at that time and a light went on in my head, which is why I posted the definition.

Now, it doesn't so much, since Uzziah admitted to deliberately playing with a double meaning and Job has tunnel vision. I don't like at all that Uzziah said his double meaning was intentional - why then vote Job for quoting it? (Yes Uzziah, I would like an answer to that). It's not that I think Uzziah is definitely good, in fact I don't have a good vibe from him either - I'm very aware that it seems like I'm defending Uzziah but really the reason I'm doing it is because I think Job's case is a crock and I don't trust him a whole lot AND because I'm very aware of how easy this game will be to win for the heathen if we keep taking the easy way out instead of looking for disingenuous posts and people who can't keep their logic straight. But there is always the possibility both are bad eg one horseman, one heathen.

[Echo]

If Job was good, he would have backed down on pursuing me.

[NurseWilgy]

If Job was good, he would have backed down on pursuing me.

I don't see how that's true. Aren't good guys just as tenacious as bad guys?

[Nicol Bolas]

If Job was good, he would have backed down on pursuing me.

What a fancy trap.

[Grand Scheme]

If Job was good, he would have backed down on pursuing me.

I think you'll find the Good Book says quite the opposite.

But it is good to be zealously affected always in a good thing, and not only when I am present with you.

[Prisoner 509378]

Sorry but I'm not buying it. She was starting to get people's eyes. Scum love to keep suspicious people around so they can be mislynched. She wouldn't have lasted past day 4 if she kept it up.

So what do you make of her death? Do you think she was Heathen and they killed one of their own to throw us off?

I think that is a stretch. Those definitions of the word are far less commonly used in the context of his sentence.

While it may be a stretch, there are several linguistically-inclined players at every forum who would do just what Uzziah did. Makes their post vague enough to keep people concerned about him (thereby eliminating him as a Heathen target) or it gives a Heathen a snarky alibi that some might actually believe. Either way, it's not quite clear enough to warrant an immediate stoning, yet vague enough to warrant keeping him on peoples' suspicions lists. Clever play sir.

[Echo]

If Job was good, he would have backed down on pursuing me.

I don't see how that's true. Aren't good guys just as tenacious as bad guys?

Good guys should avoid lynching each other. He's clearly not even considering other options, yet he blaims me for not being helpful. I've named three likely baddies so far without making up fake accusations about any of them.